Clinical comparability between the CFC and HFA budesonide pressurised metered-dose inhalers in paediatric patients with asthma: a randomised controlled trial

Quantitative comparison of different inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma in children

BACKGROUND

The GINA recommends inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for the treatment of steps 2-3 of childhood asthma. However, the difference in efficacy between these drugs remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of different ICS drugs in the treatment of childhood asthma.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials of ICSs in the treatment of childhood asthma. Using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) as the primary outcome, a time-course model of ICSs was constructed. In addition, the symptom-free days% were analyzed as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 2237 children that reported FEV₁ were included. The results showed that the ET50 of ciclesonide (CIC) and budesonide (BUD) was 1.23 and 2.97 weeks, respectively. Compared with them, FP had a higher efficacy. In terms of symptom-free days%, we found that the efficacy of beclometasone dipropionate was lower than that of CIC and fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the efficacy of three ICS drugs was quantitatively compared, providing necessary information for the implementation of medication guidelines for steps 2-3 of asthma in children.

IMPACT

This study analyzed the entire time-course of the drug efficacy of Inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma in children aged 5-12, which found that although the maximum efficacy of both ciclesonide and budesonide was the same, the onset speed of ciclesonide was faster than that of budesonide. The above information provides the necessary quantitative information for the implementation of medication guidelines for steps 2-3 asthma in children.

Asthma outcomes: exacerbations

BACKGROUND

The goals of asthma treatment include preventing recurrent exacerbations. Yet there is no consensus about the terminology for describing or defining "exacerbation" or about how to characterize an episode's severity.

OBJECTIVE

National Institutes of Health institutes and other federal agencies convened an expert group to propose how asthma exacerbation should be assessed as a standardized asthma outcome in future asthma clinical research studies.

METHODS

We used comprehensive literature reviews and expert opinion to compile a list of asthma exacerbation outcomes and classified them as either core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at a National Institutes of Health-organized workshop in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011.

RESULTS

No dominant definition of "exacerbation" was found. The most widely used definitions included 3 components, all related to treatment, rather than symptoms: (1) systemic use of corticosteroids, (2) asthma-specific emergency department visits or hospitalizations, and (3) use of short-acting β-agonists as quick-relief (sometimes referred to as "rescue" or "reliever") medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The working group participants propose that the definition of "asthma exacerbation" be "a worsening of asthma requiring the use of systemic corticosteroids to prevent a serious outcome." As core outcomes, they propose inclusion and separate reporting of several essential variables of an exacerbation. Furthermore, they propose the development of a standardized, component-based definition of "exacerbation" with clear thresholds of severity for each component.

Knowledge of and technique for using inhalation devices among asthma patients and COPD patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate knowledge of and techniques for using prescribed inhalation devices among patients with asthma or COPD treated at a tertiary teaching hospital.

METHODS

Patients were assessed after medical visits, and their physicians were blinded to this fact. Patients were asked to demonstrate their inhaler technique and were then interviewed regarding their knowledge of inhalation devices, control of the disease and instructions received during medical visits.

RESULTS

We included 120 volunteers: 60 with asthma and 60 with COPD. All of the asthma patients and 98.3% of the COPD patients claimed to know how to use inhaled medications. In the sample as a whole, 113 patients (94.2%) committed at least one error when using the inhalation device. Patients committed more errors when using metered-dose inhalers than when using the dry-powder inhalers Aerolizer (p < 0.001) or Pulvinal (p < 0.001), as well as committing more errors when using the Aerolizer inhaler than when using the Pulvinal inhaler (p < 0.05). Using the metered-dose, Pulvinal and Aerolizer inhalers, the COPD group patients committed more errors than did the asthma group patients (p = 0.0023, p = 0.0065 and p = 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of the patients claimed to know how to use inhalation devices, the fact that 94.2% committed at least one error shows that their technique was inappropriate and reveals a discrepancy between understanding and practice. Therefore, it is not sufficient to ask patients whether they know how to use inhalation devices. Practical measures should be taken in order to minimize errors and optimize treatment.